How Anglican is not Reformed or Lutheran?

I started out my christian life in the Church of England. There are certain churches in the UK, which are said to being reformed churches and these primaily adhere to the Calvanistic Doctrines, but the Church of England developed from different origins. Before King Henry the eighth broke away from Rome, what became the Church of England was Catholic.

In the earilest days the main change was only that King Henry became head of the Church. Thomas Cranmer wrote the first Church of England book of common prayer and over time some of the Church of England vicars and bishops became Puritans. The purtians wrote quite a lot of the puritan theological books, which had a major influence.

Then came Queen Mary, who had many of the Puritans and the proestants burnt at the sake. After she died, her sister Queen Elizabeth came to the throne and turned the country back to the protestant faith again. Sometime later the Wesley brothers and many others began to have a big influence and a lot of what the mainstream English churches and their theological roots were formed.

I don't think that the Church of England developed into what it was later known for all in one go, in fact it was more likely that it was quite a lengthy process.

Methodism developed out of Anglicanism.

Jesusthekingofking said:

How Anglican view methodist?

Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Do you mean, do we have good ecumenical relationships?

Jesusthekingofking said:

Developed out seems negative, if Wesley is fine with the Anglican church, why there's another branch of denomination?

Click to expand...

Wesley himself was an Anglican priest (if not always a very obedient one) until the day he died. My understanding (based on some fairly rusty memory of some church history classes) is that, particularly in America, Methodist congregations developed quickly beyond the ability of the Church of England to maintain oversight or good pastoral relationships. And that the C of E, in turn, had little interest in these groups which it saw as unrelated to its own life and practice. And so Methodists needed to manage themselves more independently despite Wesley's original intention that they be more of a movement within Anglicanism.

Both Wesley brothers were ministers in the Church of England. Methodism was their take on how people were to live the Christian life. They did not have any wish to separate themselves from the Church of England, that pressure to separate was deliberately brought about from within the church of England. At the time Methodism was a very dynamic force within the Christian life of the nation.

Jesusthekingofking said:

Developed out seems negative, if Wesley is fine with the Anglican church, why there's another branch of denomination?

Click to expand...

This Anglican was Methodist for most of his youthful and adult life. I originally joined the Methodist church when it was more liturgical than it had become by the time I left it. Becoming Anglican was such an easy transition for me because I found the Methodist church I had known and The Episcopal Church of today had so much in common. Just one opinion from the pew.

Paidiske said:

Wesley himself was an Anglican priest (if not always a very obedient one) until the day he died. My understanding (based on some fairly rusty memory of some church history classes) is that, particularly in America, Methodist congregations developed quickly beyond the ability of the Church of England to maintain oversight or good pastoral relationships. And that the C of E, in turn, had little interest in these groups which it saw as unrelated to its own life and practice. And so Methodists needed to manage themselves more independently despite Wesley's original intention that they be more of a movement within Anglicanism.

Click to expand...

So the original Methodists (not just the Wesley brothers) were still faithful (or not so faithful) Anglicans? Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

RileyG said:

So the original Methodists (not just the Wesley brothers) were still faithful (or not so faithful) Anglicans? Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Bear in mind that Methodism began in 18th-century England, where basically everyone belonged to the C of E by default. But that doesn't mean the C of E was always doing its job well. Particularly in the slums of the rapidly-growing cities, Methodism often reached people who weren't being served well by their local C of E parish.

It'd be a bit like... say my local parish has a small group who meet in someone's home. And that small group then go out and start an outreach somewhere the parish isn't otherwise engaged; and they actually bring people to faith and so on through that outreach. But those people then don't start coming to church in my parish (where they don't really fit in and perhaps aren't made very welcome) but gather to pray and study and worship together in their own group. Let that run on for long enough and you end up with a new identity.

Paidiske said:

Pretty much. Bear in mind that Methodism began in 18th-century England, where basically everyone belonged to the C of E by default. But that doesn't mean the C of E was always doing its job well. Particularly in the slums of the rapidly-growing cities, Methodism often reached people who weren't being served well by their local C of E parish.

It'd be a bit like... say my local parish has a small group who meet in someone's home. And that small group then go out and start an outreach somewhere the parish isn't otherwise engaged; and they actually bring people to faith and so on through that outreach. But those people then don't start coming to church in my parish (where they don't really fit in and perhaps aren't made very welcome) but gather to pray and study and worship together in their own group. Let that run on for long enough and you end up with a new identity.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. I think it makes more sense now.

Paidiske said:

Wesley himself was an Anglican priest (if not always a very obedient one) until the day he died. My understanding (based on some fairly rusty memory of some church history classes) is that, particularly in America, Methodist congregations developed quickly beyond the ability of the Church of England to maintain oversight or good pastoral relationships. And that the C of E, in turn, had little interest in these groups which it saw as unrelated to its own life and practice. And so Methodists needed to manage themselves more independently despite Wesley's original intention that they be more of a movement within Anglicanism.

Click to expand...

There was also a political element - the C of E for a time after the war also refused to ordain clergy for what became the Episcopal Church. Thus the first Episcopalian bishop, Bishop Seabury, was consecrated by Non Juring Episcopalians from the North of England and what is now the Scottish Episcopal Church. It is for this reason that the Holy Communion Service in the American church most closely resembles that in the Scottish Episcopal Church, with an Epiclesis loosely adapted from the Divine Liturgy of St. James (specifically because the Non Jurors insisted on this as a prerequisite to ordaining Bishop Seabury).

Indeed if you look at the Scottish Holy Communion Service in the 1929 Scottish BCP and compare it and the English Holy Communion service in the same book, or the 1662 BCP Holy Communion service with that in the 1796-1928 Episcopal Holy Communion service, and the two Eucharistic prayers in Rite I of the 1979 BCP Holy Communion, the Scottish Holy Communion service is more similar. Additionally, there is an Epiclesis in the Rite II Eucharistic Prayers.

Conversely, the Holy Communion service from John Wesley’s Sunday Service Book for the Methodists in North America is largely the same as the 1662 BCP on which it was based.

1929 Scottish Eucharist
The Scottish Book of Common Prayer (1929): Holy Communion, Scottish Rite

1979 Rite I American Eucharist http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/euchr1.pdf

Interestingly, due to pressure from Anglo Catholic elements, and counter-pressure from Low Church elements, there is also an epiclesis in the 1962 Canadian BCP.

Daniel9v9 said:

Perhaps it can be helpful to think of it in these terms: The three different theological systems are close and they overlap, but: The Anglican system is broad and comes out of the conservative Reformation, whereas the Reformed system is also broad, but is leaning towards the radical Reformation, and the Lutheran system is narrow and comes out of the conservative Reformation.

So, what this means practically speaking, is that it is possible to be Reformed and perhaps Lutheran in the Anglican Church, but you can't be Anglican in the Lutheran Church, and given the Anglican church polity, it may also be difficult to be Anglican in the Reformed Church.

So, it's not so much about distinctives, but about how broad the system is. The Anglican system is the centre road of Christianity and strives for unity. And that's how it's different from the Reformed and the Lutheran churches which are more confessional or fixed. The Lutheran Church certainly is.

Click to expand...

Very insightful, at least with regards to traditional Broad Church Anglicanism. The Continuing Anglican churches in the US tend to be either specifically high church or low church.

History. The English reformers were heavily influenced by the Continental reformers, especially Calvin and Zwingli. The Anglican church was from the begining "Calvinist in doctrine, Catholic in ceremonial". Article XVII of the 39 Articles lays down the law in teaching Predestination and Election. We were even represented at the Synod of Dort. How Calvinist can you get?
But Archbihop Laud was turning the chuch in a more Catholic direction in the 17th century (hence the Civil War) and the Oxford Movement tried it again in the Victorian age. The resulting struggle between ritualists and evangelicals faded out into an uneasy truce, and the religious approach of a modern Anglican local church tends to depend on the traditions of the parish.

Many of the most active protestant churches in the UK are from other denominations and even non-conformist churches. I don't actually have much idea of actual relative sizes of the various different groups, but I don't think that you can necessarily assume than the bulk of the UK's protestant Christians are necessarily members of the Church of England (Anglian).. There are different shades of theological positions with the Church of England. Some are quite conservative, while others can be quite liberal as well. Even in some cases the ritualistic traditions still remain in some Church of England churches. A lot of them are a bit of a mixed bunch, so it's not always possible to really put them all into one particular homogenised group.

As a teenager, I used to be in a Church of England church, but now I am in a small non conformist church. This is not a big deal which church a lot of uk Christians goto is often determined by what churches are nearest to where they live. I think that is like that in many other countries, There are various degrees of commitment from different Protestant Christians within the UK, some many go to church because that's what their upbringing was, but some are fully commited really serious Christians. Not everyone in the protestant churches in the Uk necessary has very much theological understanding about what their church stands for.

StephenDisraeli said:

History. The English reformers were heavily influenced by the Continental reformers, especially Calvin and Zwingli. The Anglican church was from the begining "Calvinist in doctrine, Catholic in ceremonial". Article XVII of the 39 Articles lays down the law in teaching Predestination and Election. We were even represented at the Synod of Dort. How Calvinist can you get?
But Archbihop Laud was turning the chuch in a more Catholic direction in the 17th century (hence the Civil War) and the Oxford Movement tried it again in the Victorian age. The resulting struggle between ritualists and evangelicals faded out into an uneasy truce, and the religious approach of a modern Anglican local church tends to depend on the traditions of the parish.

Click to expand...

That's fascinating!!

Trusting in Him said:

<Snip>

In the earilest days the main change was only that King Henry became head of the Church. Thomas Cranmer wrote the first Church of England book of common prayer and over time some of the Church of England vicars and bishops became Puritans. <Snip>

I don't think that the Church of England developed into what it was later known for all in one go, in fact it was more likely that it was quite a lengthy process.

Click to expand...

Yes, a very lengthy process.

Certainly true that Henry rejected the Pope and not the catholicity of the Church.
Cranmer, during his time as an ambassador in Germany, studied with Lutherans, and married the niece of a Lutheran Professor. Cranmer's BCP, with some simplifications, was the Lutheran Service Book of it's time.
Likewise, when we read the 39 articles along with the Augsburg Confession, there is no denying the Lutheran influence.

Interestingly, when the Lutherans in North America Transitioned to English (around 1900) they consulted the BCP as their basis for what eventually became "The Lutheran Hymnal" in 1941, this is also the timing of when we "misplaced" the Apocrypha because we adopted the KJV Bible at the same time.

Both Anglicans and Lutherans have influenced the progression of each other's Churches.